Starmer may resign

TheatreLover

TheatreLover

I’m not quoting Ferrari as some sort of ‘truth’. I can’t stand the man, and usually switch off when his programme comes on. However, I try to be open-minded and listen to the views of people whose views I don’t agree with. It’s one of the reasons I like to follow GN N&P threads because of the usually well-informed posts from posters of different political persuasions.

I just thought that his opening up a discussion about how quickly our political system allows for quick expulsion of prime ministers interesting.

Sorry, my last post was to CatsWhiskas.

I think it's me you should be cross with, not CatsWhiskas.

Sorry, I'd just read a load of posts blaming the media for Starmer's demise then read 'Ferrari says' (or words to that effect)

Thanks for clarification and apologies again...

eazybee

Some interesting thoughts.
A 'kind man' doesn't prosecute Veterans.
He defeated Corbyn then drove him out of his Party.
He sacked Louise Haigh out of hand; she has masterminded Burnham's campaign.
'KS found out the hard way that being PM isn't easy'. Well no; he was very instrumental in getting rid of Boris, Truss and Sunak, particularly Boris, and now it has come back to bite him.
He wouldn't listen to advice about Mandelson and created a disaster.
Yet now, when he should stand firm and at least fight, as he said he would only a few days ago, it seems that he is going to go and inflict a loudmouth self-promoter as PM on the electorate on the basis of one win in a by-election, with no apparent mandate, a sheaf of promises, and no recent experience of the febrile politics in Westminster. I wonder who really is behind all this.

Staying and fighting simply isn’t an option, it’s not the best thing for govt or our country.

You clearly have zero respect for Starmer and that’s your prerogative, however not all of us feel the same.

Btw, veterans are not above the law, just like the rest of us.

TheatreLover

I’m not quoting Ferrari as some sort of ‘truth’. I can’t stand the man, and usually switch off when his programme comes on. However, I try to be open-minded and listen to the views of people whose views I don’t agree with. It’s one of the reasons I like to follow GN N&P threads because of the usually well-informed posts from posters of different political persuasions.

I just thought that his opening up a discussion about how quickly our political system allows for quick expulsion of prime ministers interesting.

Sorry, my last post was to CatsWhiskas.

I’m not quoting Ferrari as some sort of ‘truth’. I can’t stand the man, and usually switch off when his programme comes on. However, I try to be open-minded and listen to the views of people whose views I don’t agree with. It’s one of the reasons I like to follow GN N&P threads because of the usually well-informed posts from posters of different political persuasions.

I just thought that his opening up a discussion about how quickly our political system allows for quick expulsion of prime ministers interesting.

CatsWhiskas

MayBee70

I think it's totally unacceptable for Burnham to become PM without some sort of election. If another party did it Labour would be complaining about it. I mean, no one even knows what his policies are because he wasn't even an MP. And surely he's got to continue with the manifesto that the electorate voted for?

Maybe my memory is at fault, but I don't think there was a general election when Brown, Truss or Sunak became PM. There are precedents.

And there was a lot of criticism about Brown at the time. By the time of Truss the Conservatives were in such a mess thanks to Johnson that I think dysfunctional politics had become normalised.

TheatreLover

the political system in this country, where Prime Ministers, of any political party, can be hounded out of office, including by their own parliamentary colleagues,

That’s neatly put. Such a pile on would be unacceptable in some SM apps.

CatsWhiskas

MayBee70

I think it's totally unacceptable for Burnham to become PM without some sort of election. If another party did it Labour would be complaining about it. I mean, no one even knows what his policies are because he wasn't even an MP. And surely he's got to continue with the manifesto that the electorate voted for?

Maybe my memory is at fault, but I don't think there was a general election when Brown, Truss or Sunak became PM. There are precedents.

Yes, the LBC presenter would be aware that there are precedents when Prime Ministers have taken office without a general election having been called. He was comparing the political system in this country, where Prime Ministers, of any political party, can be hounded out of office, including by their own parliamentary colleagues, with the American system where POTUS can only be forced out of office by impeachment or the 25th amendment.

GrannyGravy13

I can only hope that those MP’s currently baying for the PM to resign and Andy Burnham to be installed in No.10 know what they are doing…

My personal opinion (for what it’s worth) I would rather KS had got rid of Rachel Reeves, have a more pro-active communications team along with ensuring that some of the governments announcements actually come to fruition.

Growing the economy the much used sound bite is not reaching the SME’s of the U.K., it is a ridiculously tough time to be in business, compounded by the situation in the ME and the ongoing war in Ukraine.

👏👏👏👏👏👏

Not a proud moment for the Labour Party.
This is what happened when Sunak was elected; the members were promised a vote, but when the ballot opened they were only allowed to choose between the last two: Truss and Sunak. The fact that Truss was selected over Sunak says volumes about how the members felt about being manipulated; when Sunak was finally in post he couldn't do it and gave up.

What would people have had him do with Trump? Get locked in a battle that would have been detrimental to British business or employ diplomacy whilst fighting back the nausea on our behalf? Back him up in an illegal war and commit our troops to a war with no end?

The state visit has kept our US commercial connections afloat.

valdali

3 things I liked:

Swallowed his pride & was "matey" with Trump, earning us a bit of a bye when stonking tariffs were introduced (& repealed & introduced again)

Said he was going to make unpopular decisions but he was going to do this because long-term stability for UK is better than personal acclaim for him.

Wasn't having any of it when Trump wanted us to join in Iran war.

Settled the long-running NHS strikes (I know the hospital docs have come back, but not as strong as grievances partially appeased)

Getting rid of 0 hour contracts & other exploitative work practices. some progress on small boats, renters right.

Yes, indeed he did swallow his pride when dealing with the loathsome Trump.

His credibility died with the cringey scene at The White House when he presented the State Visit invite to Trump like a failing magician pulling a rabbit out of a top hat.

Mr Burnham will need to pass a serious vetting procedure instigated by Larry The Cat who will currently be busy printing out P45's for both Keir Starmer AND Rachel Reeves.

Yessssss!

The lectern is out, so not long till we know…

“52 questions Richard Murphy has posed to Burnham … starts:

If Andy Burnham is serious about becoming prime minister, then there are a series of questions he needs to answer before anyone can sensibly judge whether he offers a genuine alternative to the current government, or merely a different personality pursuing much the same agenda. The questions need to go beyond personality, competence, or electability. They need to establish what he believes, what he would do, and how he understands the challenges the UK faces.”

Sums it up perfectly!

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/06/21/fifty-two-questions-for-andy-burnham/

CatsWhiskas

Maybe my memory is at fault, but I don't think there was a general election when Brown, Truss or Sunak became PM. There are precedents.

You’re right. I don’t remember there being that much fuss about Brown, possibly because social media and the Internet in general hadn’t really got going back then but certainly there was a lot of Labour voters saying how wrong it is during the Tory change about.

TheatreLover

Cossy

MayBee70

I think it's totally unacceptable for Burnham to become PM without some sort of election. If another party did it Labour would be complaining about it. I mean, no one even knows what his policies are because he wasn't even an MP. And surely he's got to continue with the manifesto that the electorate voted for?

I agree, but it really does appear this is what KS’s ex-colleagues really want!

I’m angry and sad and disgusted in equal measures, this is not democracy and it’s clear AB has a rather inflated sense of self-importance.

Nick Ferrara on LBC is questioning how on earth a Prime Minister can be changed based on the results of one by-election.

It isn’t the result of ‘one by election. It’s an accumulation of poor decisions and treatment of backbenchers. Of the courting of Reform voters, of whipping for votes which violate vaguely socialist principles, of a leader who was notoriously remote from his MPs, of the imposition of many of those MPs on CLPs that wanted their own candidates, it was 101 little things that added up to a big grievance.

It was also the absolute certainty that Labour would not win a second term with Starmer (and Reeves, but her successor won’t be any better) at the helm.

After all that has been said about the media misleading people I find it quite amusing that Ferrari is being quoted as some sort of ‘truth’…

This isn’t a Labour Party I recognise, this isn’t about our country, voters or democracy! In my view it’s about ego’s, power and kudos!

Totally agree Cossy.

The LP has approx 250,000 grass roots members; part of the ‘contract’ of membership is that we get to vote for who we want to lead the party.

Burnham’s ’camp’ apparently doesn’t want a proper leadership election. They’re ’manipulating’ things so that KS resigns, triggering a ‘sham’ leadership election where the only name on the ballot paper is Andy Burnham … so, no vote required.

For 250,000 grass roots LP members that’s democracy denied😡

I have to ask myself, why doesn’t Burnham want to face the scrutiny of a genuine leadership election🤔

If things pan out like the Burnham camp wants, it will do untold damage to the LP.

I’m saddened and angered in equal measure.

Some interesting thoughts.
A 'kind man' doesn't prosecute Veterans.
He defeated Corbyn then drove him out of his Party.
He sacked Louise Haigh out of hand; she has masterminded Burnham's campaign.
'KS found out the hard way that being PM isn't easy'. Well no; he was very instrumental in getting rid of Boris, Truss and Sunak, particularly Boris, and now it has come back to bite him.
He wouldn't listen to advice about Mandelson and created a disaster.
Yet now, when he should stand firm and at least fight, as he said he would only a few days ago, it seems that he is going to go and inflict a loudmouth self-promoter as PM on the electorate on the basis of one win in a by-election, with no apparent mandate, a sheaf of promises, and no recent experience of the febrile politics in Westminster. I wonder who really is behind all this.

TheatreLover

Cossy

MayBee70

I think it's totally unacceptable for Burnham to become PM without some sort of election. If another party did it Labour would be complaining about it. I mean, no one even knows what his policies are because he wasn't even an MP. And surely he's got to continue with the manifesto that the electorate voted for?

I agree, but it really does appear this is what KS’s ex-colleagues really want!

I’m angry and sad and disgusted in equal measures, this is not democracy and it’s clear AB has a rather inflated sense of self-importance.

Nick Ferrara on LBC is questioning how on earth a Prime Minister can be changed based on the results of one by-election.

There have been precedents. See above.

MayBee70

I think it's totally unacceptable for Burnham to become PM without some sort of election. If another party did it Labour would be complaining about it. I mean, no one even knows what his policies are because he wasn't even an MP. And surely he's got to continue with the manifesto that the electorate voted for?

Maybe my memory is at fault, but I don't think there was a general election when Brown, Truss or Sunak became PM. There are precedents.

Cossy

MayBee70

I think it's totally unacceptable for Burnham to become PM without some sort of election. If another party did it Labour would be complaining about it. I mean, no one even knows what his policies are because he wasn't even an MP. And surely he's got to continue with the manifesto that the electorate voted for?

I agree, but it really does appear this is what KS’s ex-colleagues really want!

I’m angry and sad and disgusted in equal measures, this is not democracy and it’s clear AB has a rather inflated sense of self-importance.

Nick Ferrara on LBC is questioning how on earth a Prime Minister can be changed based on the results of one by-election.

I can only hope that those MP’s currently baying for the PM to resign and Andy Burnham to be installed in No.10 know what they are doing…

My personal opinion (for what it’s worth) I would rather KS had got rid of Rachel Reeves, have a more pro-active communications team along with ensuring that some of the governments announcements actually come to fruition.

Growing the economy the much used sound bite is not reaching the SME’s of the U.K., it is a ridiculously tough time to be in business, compounded by the situation in the ME and the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Will Burnham want a coronation!

Cossy

Anniebach

With you MayBee , I just read Burnham wants to become pm in September!

I too read this. Well, so far it appears what AB wants, AB gets.

This isn’t a Labour Party I recognise, this isn’t about our country, voters or democracy! In my view it’s about ego’s, power and kudos!

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I so agree Cossy